DP48: PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF PROCEDURAL COMPLICATION MANAGEMENT TRAINING AMONG ANESTHESIOLOGY RESIDENTS
Sonia Brickey, BS1; Teagen Smith, MS2; Susan Jacob, MD3; Enrico Camporesi, MD4; John Hodgson, MD4; Peter Wu, MD4; Shreya Narayanan, MD3
1University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL; 2University of South Florida, Research Methodology and Biostatistics Core, Tampa, FL; 3University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Tampa, FL; 4University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tampa, FL
Introduction/Background: Managing procedural complications is an inevitable part of anesthesiology practice, yet little research has examined how residents are prepared to do so. This study evaluated anesthesiology trainees’ awareness of procedural risks, perceptions of their training, comfort in managing complications, and exposure to current educational practices. We also sought to identify associations between training experiences and self-reported comfort, highlighting trends and opportunities to strengthen residency education.
Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous Qualtrics survey was distributed via email to anesthesia residents across the United States through anesthesia program directors identified using AMA-FREIDA. Survey results were collected from April through June of 2025. The survey included up to 23 questions on demographics, training practices, Likert scale items assessing trainee comfort and preparedness, and a final open-ended question for personal reflections. Independent t tests were conducted for intergroup analysis.
Results: A total of 69 surveys were submitted. Data analysis was performed on those who reported being in postgraduate years 1-4 (n=63). 63.5% had personally experienced a complication as the proceduralist. Most respondents reported receiving education on managing complications: 71.4% formally and 85.7% informally. 69.8% received both types of training, while 3.2% received neither.
If respondents received complication-management training, domains of training were further queried. Training most frequently addressed technical and procedural skills (66.7% formal, 73.0% informal) and pre-procedure discussions of risk (54.0% formal, 77.8% informal). Fewer residents received guidance on communicating with patients and families after a complication (46.0% formal, 47.6% informal) or the psychosocial and professional impacts of complications (30.7% formal, 30.2% informal).
Participants were asked to rate their level of comfort and preparedness (0-5 Likert scale) across related domains. The highest average scores were in pre-procedure risk discussions (3.88 ± 0.96) and technical management of complications (3.54 ± 0.87), while the lowest average scores were in navigating psychosocial effects on patients and families (2.91 ± 0.88), discussing the complication with them (3.11 ± 1.01), and managing impacts of the complication on their own practice (3.15 ± 0.86).
Comfort and preparedness scores were not found to be associated with the presence or absence of formal training, nor with whether the trainee had previously experienced a complication. Overall, comfort and preparedness levels tended to improve with advancing training years, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Mean comfort and preparedness scores (0-5 Likert scale) by residency training year.
Discussion/Conclusion: Our survey found that most anesthesia trainees receive education on managing procedural complications. Self-assessed comfort and preparedness levels in various domains of complications management increased with successive training years, suggesting that existing educational efforts do have a positive impact. Among residents who received either form of training, fewer reported instruction in the psychosocial aspects of managing complications. This gap was reflected in their comfort ratings, which were, on average, lower in psychosocial domains compared with more technical areas. Notably, standard deviations were wide across all comfort and preparedness measures, indicating considerable variability in trainees’ experiences. Overall, these findings point to a gap in current anesthesiology training and identify a target for future curriculum development.